The other strategy that I disagree with is the Leiteresque strategy of saying that analytic philosophy doesn’t exist, which is kind of like Darth Vader saying that “the Empire doesn’t exist.”
Graham’s point, in response to the abstract of this article by Robrecht Vanderbeeken, who argues for a continued “agon” between continental and analytic philosophy is not to pretend we are a big happy family. I generally agree. If asked, of course I’ll answer that we need to overcome the divide, that I read broadly, etc., but what that really means is “I’m well read! Some of my best friends are analytic philosophers!” Or better put, I would talk about overcoming the divide so as not to appear a Continental ideologue, or worse an idiot who couldn’t pass a third year course in analytic epistemology. And what this means in turn is that when I’m working on the concept of time, for example, I’ll read the various Anglo American philosophers on the topic, not least because I’ll get asked to respond to their take, either in my own department or at some conference, but I shouldn’t pretend I’ve overcome the divide, since whatever I write will be labeled continental and shelved acccordingly.